LISTEN HERE:
Hunter Biden, who currently awaits trial following a new wave of federal accusations, may potentially confront massive time behind bars if found guilty on all accounts.
A close reading of a Washington Examiner report reveals that ‘Special Counsel David Weiss, heading the prosecution, has brought forth nine charges against Biden in the Central District of California, accusing the President’s eldest son of neglecting to pay $1.4 million in federal taxes spanning four years.’ The accusations consist of three major felonies and six minor crimes, notably missing tax payments, foregoing tax filings, and submitting inaccurate returns from 2016 to 2019.
The Examiner emphasizes that ‘Hunter Biden’s eventual sentence could be considerably less, given existing sentencing norms’. The official indictment clearly states that Biden defrauded the federal government tax-wise whilst exploring a life of extravagance. In addition to this, a detailed list of all expenses including exotic cars, high-end hotels, illicit substances, and sexually explicit content has been provided.
Deals between Hunter Biden and the federal prosecutors for two minor tax-related misdemeanors and a firearms accusation came to a standstill due to complications involving legal immunity. Initially, District Judge Maryellen Noreika manifested several ‘reservations’ concerning the arrangement that connected a tax settlement with a firearms felony deal.
Subsequently, Hunter Biden resolutely pleaded ‘not guilty’ to all of his charges. This event quickly followed the court’s decision to retract the provision of immunity from potential future prosecutions, thus casting shadows on the terms of the original plea agreement.
The prosecutors indicated on Wednesday that Hunter Biden admitting guilt to the two minor tax misdoings did not offer him blanket immunity from potential future charges. When questioned about whether a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act was on the agenda, the prosecutors remained reticent.
The court was briefly adjourned so that further discussions between federal prosecutors and Biden’s legal team could ensue, as it was clear from the outset that both parties had differing views on the conditions of the settlement, according to news released at the time by Fox News.
Laura Ingraham, who doubles up as both a TV host and attorney, suspected foul play. She stated in a televised monologue after the arrangement crumbled that the plea agreement and court’s transcripts helped to uncover the concerted efforts to keep the public uninformed.
Ingraham pointed out a specific clause that aroused suspicion, which would provide sweeping immunity to Hunter Biden. This would conveniently render him untouchable for any transgressions committed in the relevant time frame, including potentially lucrative financial transactions with overseas companies situated in China, Romania, Ukraine, and others as yet unidentified.
This attempt to shield Hunter from additional investigations constitutes an explosive revelation—despite the claim that all his overseas business affiliations were above board. It naturally raises questions as to why Biden and his legal team would think he required this sweeping immunity agreement. Not less importantly, why did this only come to light recently?
Ingraham surmises that this may be because the legal teams representing both the DOJ, under the leadership of Joe Biden, and Hunter Biden were collaborating. The elusive ‘get out of jail free card’ was discretely tucked into paragraph 15 of a document called the Pretrial Diversion Agreement, separate from the main deal.
Unexpectedly discovering the extent to which immunity was intended to be granted and the unconstitutional role it would have enforced upon her, Judge Maryellen Noreika was evidently unpleasantly surprised.
Intriguingly, no other provision resulted in as much scrutiny as this broad immunity grant might have allowed Hunter Biden. It would have neatly covered all potentially committable crimes during the associated time frame.
These supposedly included transactions concerning his profitable business relationships with international organizations based in several countries, some of which were not disclosed.
This development puts into question the true nature of Hunter Biden’s relationships with foreign business interests—if all was well, why the need for comprehensive immunity?
These findings underscore a fast-evolving situation regarding Hunter Biden in connection with his federal legal troubles, serving as a stark reminder of the complexities of legal enforcements and the potential repercussions of high-powered interactions.
